Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Advice to Trump Critics: Breathe
My latest column for USA Today explores the beltway class’s hysterical outrage every time Donald Trump gives a speech, takes a meeting, or tweets, well, anything.
His detractors were outraged by how long it took Trump to make Cabinet nominations, then a few days later switched their outrage to his actual choices.
They were outraged that a tiny meeting of “alt-right” racists praised him. When Trump condemned the wannabe Nazis, the press blamed his supporters for falling for “fake news” and something called “Pizzagate.”
Can you believe what Trump said to Pakistan’s prime minister — or that he accepted a congratulatory call from Taiwan’s president? What will the totalitarians in China think?
But none of that pearl-clutching compared with the outrage over Trump’s tweets about flag burning or recounts or China or Hamilton or “Saturday Night Live.” Sad!
But let me offer a little friendly advice: Breathe.
Some commenters replied, “Oh yeah, what about Republicans responding to Obama?!” While Republicans didn’t burn down our own cities and attack cops, a few cooked up conspiracy theories and compared him to Hitler (as has happened to every president of the past 50 years). But Obama used those people to define his entire opposition, which played into his hands. Meanwhile, his level-headed critics blocked any major legislative accomplishment for his last six years, introduced poison pills for Obamacare, and won electoral wipe-outs for both midterms.
If Trump critics’ primary goal is emotional venting, by all means perform a week-long St. Vitus dance every time the President-elect makes a grammatical error on Twitter. But if they want to prevent Trump from exceeding his constitutional authority, they might want to keep their powder dry until he does something that matters.
Published in Politics
But this is Ricochet. This is not simple-minded, general population discussion.
That’s playing the man not the ball. Are the ideas espoused true or untrue, worthy or unworthy? These are the questions we ask here, not if the person part of the “good” tribe or not.
You are the one making a big deal about, nobody else. I guess in your world, nobody should point out who they voted for and why, for the next four years, is that right? I think you are in for a rough road.
Indeed. Ricochetti don’t (shouldn’t) need tribal signals to evaluate arguments.
It is not playing the man. Virtual signalling is divisive tribal behavior, that many NTs persist in. Those who believe ideas should be judged without reference to a tribe would be joining me in denouncing NTs’ tribal declarations.
But that’s not what’s being done. These aren’t explanations of one’s vote, but use of one’s past vote to bolster a current argument. Like one’s vote is a credential or badge of honor. It is a form of appeal to authority, but presented as a tribal declaration.
Every time the phrase “virtue signaling” is used, a puppy dies and a leftist professor smiles.
You are the one who insists that it is virtue signaling when it is not. It is stated to demonstrate disconnection from Trump and unbiased evaluation of his actions, especially when those actions are worthy of praise.
@exjon, settle the disagreement: by stating that you did not vote for Trump are you virtue signaling and declaring tribal affiliation or establishing that you have no personal investment in the decisions by Trump that you evaluate?
That may be what some writers/speakers are trying to get across, but I highly doubt Trump voters read/hear it that way. I get condescension and either insult or chagrin, depending on whether the argument as a whole is either critical or laudatory. I can picture a leftist briefly hearing “I’m one of you” before the rest of the conservative argument is shredded by the shields the tribal appeal raised.
I desperately want the brilliant thinkers on the right to recover from this miserable election cycle. It won’t happen as long as this keeps popping up.
Can you not see that “no personal investment in the decisions by Trump that you evaluate” is virtue and “establishing that” is signaling?
At least you’re willing to admit it is your interpretation rather than the author’s intent…lol.
I’m mostly asking to view it from both perspectives. Your evaluation could be right — with some people — but we both should know Jon well enough by now to at least give him the benefit of the doubt or ask for confirmation prior to summarily dismissing his argument.
You voted for Trump, we get it. No need to virtue signal about it. Why do you continue to try and impress us, and show us how much smarter than us you are? Stop virtue signalling.
It just as valid as a statement that he’s no salesman for the product therefore his review can be trusted.
KP, he’s the one doing the virtue signalling. All hail Phil, the Pragmatic Realist!
Have you run out of rebuttals? Is this not “Playing the Man” ?
It is. I’ll have his wife scold him later.
@philturmel Does your constant harping on this issue constitute Virtue Signaling to your Trumpkin tribe? Asking for a friend.
Which is virtue signalling in exactly the same way. While I would like to see @exjon weigh in on this comment series (start with #15 if jumping in), I am trying to point out that your assertion is a distinction without a difference. And it doesn’t negate my comment on how such appeals are read.
I’ve been busy these past few days and checked in because someone told me to visit the thread and bring some Jiffy Pop.
I intended to just calmly read this thread, and enjoy the lighthearted bickering, but must take exception to the label Trumpkin tribe. You may have just validated Phil’s argument with one injudicious comment. HDAHA
The term is loaded. It is no longer a simple statement of fact but carries a weight of condemnation with it, hence the opprobrium its use engenders now. Because of such it does not further dialogue but only serves to agitate disagreement even where inherent agreement may exist.
From my perspective it appears as though you believe anyone who did not vote for Trump can be dismissed without regard for the argument being made. Accusations of virtue signaling have become a type of virtue signaling, and we enter a negative feedback loop.
No need for personal attacks or vendettas. All Ricochetti made their decisions for or against Trump for their own reasons, not to “virtue signal” to this group or that.
This article should unite us. The histrionic left are acting ridiculous.
^What he said^
We had enough of this on the site before the election – the use of the phrase “virtue signaling” nearly always led to a fight then, and it is doing so now. Further, this is a tendentious meta-discussion that has nothing to do with the OP.
Let’s just drop this loop now and move on.
I’m certain that they will fail to take your advice. When Trump does something they should get upset about they’ll be out of ammunition. I’m pretty sure they’ll just make stuff up at that point.
I did admit I was wrong immediately after the election.
The first step of effective communication is identifying the audience. The USA Today and Arizona Republic audience is left-leaning, and I am speaking directly to those who react hysterically to everything Trump does. My advice is aimed at them, not at those who support him. They are more likely to accept the advice of a somewhat neutral party, not someone gloating that my guy won.
There is no rebuttal to a guy who says “What, you bought a latte? You must hate Germans! And by showing me your latte you are just virtue signalling!” There is only shaking my head and saying to myself “There’s a special place…”
I voted for Trump. The other choices had an expected value of advancing conservatism too low to be meaningfully calculated. Trump had a better expected value. It was actually a pretty easy choice on election day.
I take no responsibility for his actions and I will hold him as accountable as I would anyone else in his position.
You can impute to me whatever blame you desire – just recognize that you are doing so in order to make yourself feel better.
Victor Davis Hansen had great points, particularly the ones where he understood why people couldn’t vote for Trump – but he also mentions he gets blasted by conservatives who hold his vote for trump against him.
For TPTB – did VDH’s prediction from the Ricochet Podcast #325 come true? (He predicted that on the NR cruise someone would come up to him and tell him how disappointed they were that he voted for Trump).
That being said – so far I am actually quite heartened by his cabinet picks. They are by far more ‘conservative’ than I would have expected from someone who donated to Hillary in the past.
My expected value prediction worked out the way I expected it to.
I don’t think it always indicates projection, but I think it always displays hubris.
Somehow missed that one. Ok.
I accept the intent. I’m not entirely sure the impact is as you intend (from #38):
Let me re-iterate this (also from #38):
I’m gonna stop here, as @skipsul suggested.
Codswallop. Another assignment of motive. You have no idea why I said it because I have not told you why. Don’t make assumptions about another’s heart or mind.
I voted for Bush, twice. When he did dumb [expletive] he did so in my name and with authority granted to him from me. His stupid was my stupid. Conversely, when he stood atop the rubble after 9/11 I figuratively stood with him because I acted to place him there. Just as we blame the democrats (and even some republicans) who voted for Obama for the things he has done, so shall Trump’s voters share in either his glory or his infamy.
That’s kind of what I thought.